Anakin

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

monitor_list

Read-only

List all website monitors, or fetch one monitor's configuration and status—check times, active state, credit cost, alert settings. Use it to find monitor IDs for changes or control.

Instructions

List your website monitors, or pass id to fetch one monitor's full configuration and status (next/last check time, active state, per-check credit cost, alert settings). Use this to find a monitor's id before monitor_changes or monitor_control.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	No	Monitor ID — fetch just this monitor instead of the full list.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	No
`url`	No
`scope`	No
`isActive`	No
`monitors`	No	Present when id was omitted — every monitor, each shaped like the fields above.
`watchMode`	No
`watchFormat`	No
`intervalMinutes`	No
`alertWebhookSecret`	No	Always redacted before being returned — retrieve the real value from the Anakin dashboard.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.4.1Sep 22, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description complements this by disclosing the dual list/fetch behavior and the type of data returned (next/last check time, active state, credit cost, alert settings). No contradiction exists.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences with no filler. The core behavior is stated first, followed by the optional parameter behavior and a practical usage hint. Every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers what the tool returns, how the single optional parameter changes behavior, and why an agent would use it. An output schema exists, so detailed return-value documentation is not required here.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the `id` parameter clearly. The description adds some context about the single-monitor result being 'full configuration and status', but does not add substantial parameter-level meaning beyond that.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('website monitors'), and additionally covers the single-monitor variant when an `id` is passed. This distinguishes it from related siblings like monitor_control and monitor_changes.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly tells the agent to use this tool to find a monitor's id before calling monitor_changes or monitor_control. This provides clear routing context for when the tool should be used relative to its siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.